> The oil price was high because of the unsure Irak situation and future
> during the election. Now that Bush got a second term and started to
> regain control of the situation by killing all the insurgents, Funny
> how it happen just after election, the oil business are getting more
> confident over the amount of oil that will come from Irak in a near future.
> Bush kill the new "democracy" regime opponents, arrange election so the
> new president of Irak is a good friend of him, oil is flowing like never
> before, and everybody is happy.
>
> Supply and demand
>

So, you're saying the oil industry expected that Kerry would have screwed up Iraq so badly that Iraqi oil (and maybe all oil from the middle east) would dry up, thus raising prices--supply and demand--and expecting that to happen, prices rose before the election. No wonder Kerry lost if that's what people expected of him, and it's a good thing Bush won. Hey! I agree with you, Marc!

---

HAHA, Tom has the typical moronic RepugliKKKan mentality, i.e. "always blame the liberals for failed conservative nutcase policies!" So Nixon spent as long if not longer and killed more Americans in Vietnam because "the liberals had messed it up." Right up there with "Clinton's good economy was due to the delayed reaction of the 'great' Reagan & Bush policies." And by the way, the war in Iraq is for "ideological reasons" and was touted by lies to fool the populace. Read up on the psychos Rumsfeld & Wolfowitz and their PNAC. And try to refrain from your usual lame strawman arguments (i.e. yanking in WW2 as if I said it was an "ideology").

---

> So, you're saying the oil industry expected that Kerry would have screwed up
> Iraq so badly that Iraqi oil (and maybe all oil from the middle east) would
> dry up, thus raising prices--supply and demand--and expecting that to happen,
> prices rose before the election. No wonder Kerry lost if that's what people
> expected of him, and it's a good thing Bush won. Hey! I agree with you, Marc!

I didn't say Kerry would have screwed up Irak so badly, Bush did.
And this happens every day in the stock market. When a CEO is to
be replace because there are rumors or problem or whatever, stock
goes down. When the the situation is back to "normal" and future
directions are known it goes up. Just think of the French CEO
(forgot his name) of Vivandi Universal story.

I don't know I am neither an oil or stock market specialist,
but that is how I see it.

> Is it the same in Hawai`ì?
>

Yes it is. Greed is universal, but it is built into the theory (fact?) of supply and demand.

---

"HAHA, Tom has the typical moronic RepugliKKKan mentality"


I really like this forum and am learning a lot, But must you
always insult before you make a statement I know you aren/t
the only one. I would have more respect for your opinion and what you have to say...

Respecfully,

---

> I really like this forum and am learning a lot, But must you
> always insult before you make a statement I know you aren/t

that's really funny coming from the dope who uses an ID of a retarded kid that South Park ridicules all of the time!

---

> > I really like this forum and am learning a lot, But must you
> > always insult before you make a statement I know you aren/t
>
> that's really funny coming from the dope who uses an ID of a retarded kid that
> South Park ridicules all of the time!
>
Your responce shows you how much your opinion is taken.

Timmy is handicapped not retarded I am handicapped and not retarded.

---

I agree with Timmy. These boards have few rules and no moderator, so of course you can get away with profanity and name calling and endless citations to the Bible or links to biased websites. But profanity and insults are not argument, and in fact, mostly erode one's credibility. Citations to sources that are not believed by the reader are only slightly less effective.

There are some who post on these boards using logical well grounded arguments, and they are too few. The flamers seem most prevalent, but they don't convince.

That said, I have lost my temper also, but I do try to support my posts with more than mere insults.

---

As nobody has refutated my Message ID 44542, in a few hours I´ll suppose it´s correct.
I would like to thank Tom Koenig for encouraging me to remove the emotionalism of my messages: once I did that my argument became (truth?)
Auf Wiedersehen!

---

"Raggio spezza, amista lunga"

Tom -- you don't "debate" -- you just reiterate Limbaugh-esque claptrap. You haven't presented any facts just whines of the "liberals made us lose Vietnam" ilk. It's like me working at Oxford University with top climate scientists and having to "debate" with those that just reiterate pseudo-science from the Rush Limbaugh show about how "global warming is a liberal conspiracy"; or the many dumb Americans that think "evolution is an atheist conspiracy to destroy Jesus" etc. This "thread" is only good as catharsis for either side. I do find it funny that you screech about "goddamn liberals" etc on a site developed and run at "liberal" Berkeley.

---

Auf wiedersehen

Auf wiedersehen
We'll meet again,
Sweetheart
This lovely day
Has flown away
The time has come
To part
We'll kiss again,
Like this again
Don't let the teardrops
Start
With love that's true,
I'll wait for you
Auf wiedersehen,
Sweetheart


See I do learn from these posts.

---

> As nobody has refutated my Message ID 44542, in a few hours I´ll suppose it´s
> correct.
> I would like to thank Tom Koenig for encouraging me to remove the emotionalism
> of my messages: once I did that my argument became (truth?)
> Auf Wiedersehen!
>

Hi Luca. I intend to get to it, but I haven't had time. Oh, I have posted quite a few times that no one has answered, but that doesn't make me right: maybe no one understood me! I believe I understand you though.

---

> find it funny that you screech about "goddamn liberals" etc on a site
> developed and run at "liberal" Berkeley.
>
Please tell me the number of my post where I said "goddamn liberals" (in quotes, so you ascribe that "screech" to me).

---

don't play pedantic games, you're always screeching about liberals. Just because you are superstitious enough that you may not have used "goddamn" before it doesn't change anything.

---

***OFF TOPIC***

> don't play pedantic games, you're always screeching about liberals. Just
> because you are superstitious enough that you may not have used "goddamn"
> before it doesn't change anything.
>

No, I have no problem with the word, for example, you are a goddamn l**p-d**k a****le, but I don't believe I have used it before. By putting the term "goddamn liberal" in quotes you ascribe it to me, unfairly making others believe that I use the term loosely. This says more about your bias than any screed you may have foisted upon the readers of this thread.

---

> > As nobody has refutated my Message ID 44542, in a few hours I´ll suppose
> it´s
> > correct.
>
> That's a slightly strange bit of logic.

Perhaps Richard you are right. The popperian way of looking at it afirms that no matters how many times you establishes the correction of a theory, it continues not to be correct. Briefly: a theory can be wrong but not right.
But, utilizing other epistemological theories (linguistical, idealists, relativism, etc), we can reach the conclusion that there is not a unique substance, and, therefore, our statements doesn´t have to be related to material word to contrast it´s correctness. In this case (linguistical), theories are contrastated between talkers.
However, my top affirmation was intended to "move the hen´s house", and was not supported by any specific epistemological theory. I had only mentioned that to remember us that establishing the correctness of an affirmation is much more difficult than it seems.

---

"Raggio spezza, amista lunga"